Greatness in Music

[karlhenning]

Great paintings get hung.

But not hanged.

[BachQ]

Transcending experience and elevating it in art, which Beethoven was faced with in his own deafness, is true greatness.

What does it mean to "transcend experience" ...... ?  The very act of "transcending" is itself an "experience" ........

[zamyrabyrd]

What does it mean to "transcend experience" ...... ?  The very act of "transcending" is itself an "experience" ........

Hello Dmitri Minor,

For the last 20 years of his Beethoven was practically shut in a stone vault of silence. However he continued to probe the spirit in music, not wallow in his misfortune. This is what one may call 'transcending experience'.

ZB

[zamyrabyrd]

It just plain belongs, zb.

Thanks. While reading some of the replies here, I got the impression that the concept of greatness is not exactly agreed upon or if it exists at all. But if nothing else, it is a useful convention. Otherwise, everyone is reduced to the least common denominator (some notions of democracy or socialism).

ZB

[quintett op.57]

Hello Dmitri Minor,

For the last 20 years of his Beethoven was practically shut in a stone vault of silence. However he continued to probe the spirit in music, not wallow in his misfortune. This is what one may call 'transcending experience'.

ZB

Not that transcending. The main problem for him was to manage to compose and hold his ear trumpet at the same time. Same with Smetana.
He sometimes had to play the piano with a stick he held between his teeth

[Ten thumbs]

But not hanged.

Well, I'll be . . . .
All music transcends our everyday experience.

[Haffner]

What does it mean to "transcend experience" ...... ?  The very act of "transcending" is itself an "experience" ........

This is a point that often confounded the Continental philosophers Sartre and Husserl. In fact, many analytical philosophers theorize that such a fact is what basically killed Phenomenology.

[Guido]

I've often wondered whether a lot of 20th (and now 21st) century music is less popular than older music because the composers have overstepped the line of what the human ear finds "naturally" pleasing. Naturally is probably not the right word, since I'm sure it's to a large extent culture-based, but I don't know any other word to use. I've heard symphonies from the 20th century that some people consider great, and I find that I can't even stand to hear them, they grate on me so badly. From before a certain chronological point, there may be music that I dislike, or even hate, but it never has that same impact on me, where I really can't even stand to have it playing in my presence. I know people will just say it's my "fault", but I seem to be very far from alone in this. For example, I don't like anything I've ever heard by Bruckner, but it's not so that I can't even stomach it if a CD of his music is playing near me. Some of his stuff, I really border on hate for it, but I'll live if someone is listening to a recording near me. But I heard some passages of a symphony by someone named Krenek, and I really couldn't stand the sound, it was physically unbearable to me. Obviously it is liked by some, but is it only me? How come many people have similar reactions? You pick the "worst" piece you can think of from the 18th century and play it for someone completely unfamiliar with "classical" music, and their response probably won't be physical revulsion, even though they think it's worthless, but playing many works of "modern classical" for them you can get some really drastic responses.

What is that all about? Are there "natural" sounds to the Human ear after all? How would certain far eastern music fit into this? I've heard older music from, say, China, and even if I don't like a piece, it never has that same painful effect on me as that Krenek symphony did. When I have negative (borderline physically) reactions to what people call "metal music", that is often because of the electrical instruments and screaming voices and repeated banging drums, not because of the notes themselves, if that makes any sense. In other words, if those same exact notes were performed by, I don't know, a string ensemble, I might hate it, but it wouldn't impact me the same way.

Again, this is all just me, but believe me when I say that I am not alone with my responses to a ton of "modern classical" music. Why is that the case? I know people can react with almost painful loathing to music labeled "atonal". But even if they exhibit pure derision or hatred I've never, ever heard of anyone reacting the same way to a piece from before 1850, for example. Why is that?

It might be more interesting to ask yourself why you can't stand the music so much.

[JoshLilly]

So's your face!!  Q.E.D.

[jochanaan]

Well, I'll be . . . .
All music transcends our everyday experience.

ALL music?  Somehow I seriously doubt that.

[longears]

I experience music every day.

[greg]

Q: Would a composer ever deliberately write something that is NOT "good"?

IOW, if it's "good" to the composer, then who are we to judge/adjudge otherwise?

lol, let's hope they wouldn't try to 
(well, there's always PDQ Bach  )

i think it's more a matter of a composer trying to writing something he/she likes, but not being able to completely (it's easy to discover your own taste for harmony more than anything, but using that in combination with all the other aspects of music to make music that you like yourself isn't that easy!)

if it's "good" to the composer, it's likely to end up sounding "good" to many other people, but still the composer has to compare himself to the greats- is he even in the same league? Even if they think they're music is really good, most likely no. So their music will probably lost in the sea of "good" music instead of being recognized as great music.

[BachQ]

lol, let's hope they wouldn't try to 
(well, there's always PDQ Bach  )

i think it's more a matter of a composer trying to writing something he/she likes, but not being able to completely

***
if it's "good" to the composer, it's likely to end up sounding "good" to many other people, but still the composer has to compare himself to the greats- is he even in the same league? Even if they think they're music is really good, most likely no. So their music will probably lost in the sea of "good" music instead of being recognized as great music.

Also, I suspect that composers may write some pieces which are "good" for certain purposes, or are "good" when viewed through certain lenses, but which may not measure up artistically in every respect or when viewed from  different lenses (e.g., Ravel's Bolero; Beethoven's Choral Fantasy or LvB's Consecration of the House; Tchaikovsky's 1812 Overture; Saint-Saens' Carnival of the Animals) ...... At the same time, there are many examples of "specific-purpose" music which are "great" from any viewpoint (Handel's Water Music; Brahms Academic Festival Overture; Mozart's Haffner Serenade or Haffner Symphony; Dvorak's Slavonic Dances).

[quintett op.57]

Also, I suspect that composers may write some pieces which are "good" for certain purposes, or are "good" when viewed through certain lenses, but which may not measure up artistically in every respect or when viewed from  different lenses (e.g., Ravel's Bolero; Beethoven's Choral Fantasy or LvB's Consecration of the House; Tchaikovsky's 1812 Overture; Saint-Saens' Carnival of the Animals) ...... At the same time, there are many examples of "specific-purpose" music which are "great" from any viewpoint (Handel's Water Music; Brahms Academic Festival Overture; Mozart's Haffner Serenade or Haffner Symphony; Dvorak's Slavonic Dances).

Agree.
A piece like Bolero is great when you're in the mood for it. It seems to me that it's for one purpose, as you've said.
But in my opinion it's a less complete work than his quartet or his piano concerto which are rewarding in more different ways.

I believe what you've said is one of the most important ideas to be aware of in our debate.

[greg]

Also, I suspect that composers may write some pieces which are "good" for certain purposes, or are "good" when viewed through certain lenses, but which may not measure up artistically in every respect or when viewed from  different lenses (e.g., Ravel's Bolero; Beethoven's Choral Fantasy or LvB's Consecration of the House; Tchaikovsky's 1812 Overture; Saint-Saens' Carnival of the Animals) ...... At the same time, there are many examples of "specific-purpose" music which are "great" from any viewpoint (Handel's Water Music; Brahms Academic Festival Overture; Mozart's Haffner Serenade or Haffner Symphony; Dvorak's Slavonic Dances).

yep, each piece of music serves it's purpose, that's why it's always good to at least know a little bit about the music before you listen 

[Ten thumbs]

yep, each piece of music serves it's purpose, that's why it's always good to at least know a little bit about the music before you listen 

The only thing is - what should one know?
If one hears for the first time a piece by a minor composer, there is a danger of prejudging it as being less than great. It is useful to know what the composer is trying to convey but beyond that one's mind should be open.

[karlhenning]

The only thing is - what should one know?

Volumes might be written . . . .

[Ten thumbs]

Volumes might be written . . . .

I think as little as possible. Perhaps just one sentence or even a single word.

[jochanaan]

I think as little as possible...

Just as well.  Thinking's a dangerous activity these days--especially if you're good at it.

[Ten thumbs]

Just as well.  Thinking's a dangerous activity these days--especially if you're good at it.

Ah! Burnt out at last!